Hyperbolic Casimir-like wormhole

Daniel Brito; Ernesto Contreras; Ernesto Fuenmayor; Roberto Avalos

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 75 references

Hyperbolic Casimir-like wormhole

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An exact traversable wormhole in hyperbolic symmetry whose negative energy density is intrinsic, matched to the hyperbolic vacuum without a thin shell.

desk verdict The no-thin-shell junction claim is not demonstrated as written — opposite signature conventions give h_w = −h_v — but the flaw looks repairable, and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17906 v1 pith:UJ53HFDY submitted 2025-07-23 gr-qc

Roberto Avalos , Ernesto Contreras , Daniel Brito , Ernesto Fuenmayor This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C1583C2083C75 PACS 04.20.-q04.20.Jb

keywords traversablewormholehyperbolicsymmetryCasimireffectnegativeenergydensitynullconditioncomplexityfactorDarmoisjunctionconditionsexactsolutionsingeneralrelativity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that traversable wormholes can be built in a static spacetime with hyperbolic symmetry without adding exotic matter by hand: the symmetry itself makes the energy density negative. It constructs a Casimir-like wormhole, using a generalized complexity factor and a chosen redshift function to close Einstein's equations, and then matches the interior geometry to the hyperbolic vacuum at an outer radius. The authors claim this matching satisfies the Darmois junction conditions with no thin shell, so the exotic sector is confined to a compact region between the throat and the matching surface. If correct, this would be the first hyperbolic Casimir-like traversable wormhole with localized exotic matter, and would make the usual programme of minimizing exotic matter unnecessary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hyperbolic wormhole line element (20), $ds^2 = -e^{2\alpha}dt^2 + dr^2/(\beta/r - 1) + r^2(d\theta^2 + \sinh^2\theta\, d\phi^2)$, with shape function $\beta(r)$ whose throat is the radius $r_0$ where $\beta(r_0)=r_0$ and whose permitted range is $r \leq \beta \leq 2r$. The construction is closed by prescribing the generalized redshift $\alpha_g = -\tfrac12\log\bigl(c_0 r/(c_0 r + r_0)\bigr)$ and a generalized complexity factor $Y_g^{TF}$, the hyperbolic analogue of a scalar that encodes pressure anisotropy plus density inhomogeneity in the active gravitational mass used in the complexity definition. These two prescriptions turn the field equations into a first-order linear ODE for $\beta_g$, whose solution, after imposing $\beta_g(r_0)=r_0$ and the junction conditions at $r_\Sigma$, yields the explicit metric functions (48)-(49). The flaring-out condition $\beta'_g(r_0)>0$ then guarantees the null energy condition is violated at the throat, as required for traversability.

What would settle it

Evaluate the first and second fundamental forms of the surfaces $r = r_\Sigma$ in the wormhole geometry (20) and in the hyperbolic vacuum (1) with a fixed choice of normal; if the first fundamental forms are not equal (they differ by a sign) and no coordinate transformation makes them equal, then the claimed shell-free Darmois junction does not hold, and the construction would require a thin shell or a different exterior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the line element (20), with redshift function $\alpha_g$ and shape function $\beta_g$ fixed by (48)-(49), is an exact traversable wormhole solution of Einstein's equations sourced by a Casimir-like anisotropic fluid, and that it can be joined at $r = r_\Sigma$ to the hyperbolic vacuum (1) with continuous induced metric and extrinsic curvature, i.e. without a thin shell. The negative energy density needed at the throat is not imported from an exotic equation of state but follows from hyperbolic symmetry: for these geometries $\rho = -\beta'/(8\pi r^2)$, so the flaring-out condition $\beta'(r_0)>1$ forces $\rho(r_0)<0$ and hence violation of the weak and null energy conditions. The solution lives inside the horizon ($r_\Sigma < 2M$), where the exterior is the anti-Schwarzschild-type hyperbolic vacuum, and the authors derive compactness bounds $1/2 \leq M/r_\Sigma \leq c_{\rm max}(r_\Sigma)$ from the requirement $r \leq \beta_g \leq 2r$. Human-traversability estimates give throat radii of order $10^8$ m and traveler speeds up to about $0.8c$ under the stated tidal and time constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The construction hinges on the claim that the wormhole metric (20) and the hyperbolic vacuum metric (1) can be joined at $r = r_\Sigma$ by the Darmois conditions; as written, the induced metrics on the junction differ by an overall sign, so this matching is not obviously well-defined and the no-thin-shell conclusion rests on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The negative energy density is supplied by hyperbolic symmetry, so no separate exotic-matter sector is needed to open the throat.
Because the interior matches the hyperbolic vacuum at $r_\Sigma$ with no thin shell, the exotic matter is confined to $r_0 \leq r \leq r_\Sigma$, a compact region.
The wormhole is an interior solution living inside the event horizon ($r_\Sigma < 2M$), providing a concrete realization of a traversable tunnel inside a Schwarzschild black hole.
Traversability estimates are concrete: minimum throat radius of order $10^8$ m and maximum speed near $0.8c$ for the stated tidal bounds.
The parameter space $r_0 \leq r_\Sigma \leq 5r_0$ with $M$ between $r_\Sigma/2$ and $M_{\rm max}(r_\Sigma)$ defines a family of solutions with the same complexity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the Darmois matching can be made consistent (for instance by a coordinate redefinition that resolves the apparent sign issue in the induced metric), the same closure scheme could generate many hyperbolic wormholes by choosing different complexity factors, not just the Casimir-like one.
The construction suggests a broader principle: in hyperbolic symmetry, 'minimizing exotic matter' is replaced by localizing it automatically, so stability analyses (which the paper leaves for future work) would be the next decisive check.
A semiclassical test would be to compare the stress-energy tensor (59) with a regularized quantum vacuum expectation value in the hyperbolic background; agreement in the throat region would strengthen the Casimir interpretation.
Observational consequences are indirect but conceivable: a wormhole inside the horizon could affect the near-horizon geometry and hence gravitational-wave ringdown or shadow observables, though the matching issue must first be settled.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things before you read this: the shape function in (49) is new, and the paper is methodical about the wormhole machinery. The central claim, however — a hyperbolic wormhole matched to the hyperbolic vacuum at rΣ without a thin shell — is not established as written. Line element (20) is in a (−,+,+,+) signature, while the vacuum (1) is in (+,−,−,−). Pulling both back to r = rΣ and imposing (43)–(44) gives h_w = −h_v, not h_w = h_v. On top of that, the authors never compute the second fundamental form; they just assert (43)–(45) are the Darmois conditions.

The paper has real strengths. It is openly built on the authors' own spherical construction [49], the algebra in Section IV is consistent, and the traversability analysis — flaring-out, tidal accelerations, crossing times, compacticity bounds (50)–(57) — is unusually thorough for this genre. The motivating idea, that hyperbolic symmetry supplies negative energy density without invoking exotic mechanisms, is worth taking seriously.

On the junction I disagree a bit with the harshest reading. I redid the pullbacks in a common convention: flip (20) to (+,−,−,−), and the induced metrics agree; the reduced no-shell conditions for this metric class are continuity of g_tt, g_rr, and ν', and the solution satisfies all three. The sign mismatch is real but it looks like a signature-convention error, not a dead geometry. The bigger gap is that the paper never shows the extrinsic-curvature computation, so the no-shell claim cannot be verified without doing the repair yourself — that is a legitimate referee objection, and the matching section needs a rewrite, not a footnote.

Secondary soft spots, in proportion: the complexity factor (19) carries an unexplained |ρ'|; the 'Casimir-like' label is loose, since the matched density is −C1/r⁴ + C2/r² and the radial pressure breaks the Casimir equation of state; and the closure is reverse-engineered, which is normal for the subgenre but keeps the physical motivation modest. The reference pattern is fine: [49] is the direct predecessor and the debts to [6], [7], [9] are acknowledged.

Who gets value: the exact-solution, wormhole, and junction-condition crowd. As written I would not accept it. But it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject: the construction is checkable, the flaw is identifiable and probably repairable. If the junction is redone properly, this becomes a reasonable subfield paper.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs exact static traversable wormhole geometries in hyperbolic symmetry by prescribing a generalized redshift function and a complexity factor, then solving for the shape function. The central aim is to match the wormhole interior (20) to the hyperbolic vacuum (1) at a surface r = rΣ inside the Schwarzschild horizon, claiming that the Darmois conditions are satisfied without a thin shell. The authors analyze the matter sector, energy conditions, flaring-out condition, and human traversability constraints, concluding that the exotic matter is confined to a compact region.

Significance. If the matching were valid, the paper would present a novel result: a wormhole whose negative energy density arises naturally from hyperbolic symmetry, with the exotic sector confined to an arbitrarily small region and no thin shell. The use of the complexity factor to close the system and the explicit traversability estimates would add value. However, the central junction claim is invalid because the induced metrics on the two sides are negatives of each other; the no-thin-shell matching, which is the main selling point, is not established.

major comments (2)

[Section IV, Eqs. (43)-(45)] The claimed Darmois matching is not valid. For the wormhole metric (20), the induced metric on Σ (r = rΣ) is h_w = -e^{2α(rΣ)} dt² + rΣ² (dθ² + sinh²θ dφ²). For the hyperbolic vacuum (1) inside the horizon (rΣ < 2M), the induced metric is h_v = (2M/rΣ - 1) dt² - rΣ² (dθ² + sinh²θ dφ²). Imposing the continuity conditions (43) and (44), e^{2α(rΣ)} = 2M/rΣ - 1 = β_g(rΣ)/rΣ - 1, gives h_w = -h_v, not h_w = h_v. The first fundamental form must be identical on the two sides; an overall sign difference is not removable by a coordinate transformation because the signatures differ: h_w has signature (-,+,+) while h_v has signature (+,-,-). Moreover, the unit normal to Σ is spacelike for (20) but timelike for (1), so the causal character of the boundary also differs. The paper does not compute the extrinsic curvature, so the second Darmois condition is also unverified. Consequently, the statement in Section V that the solution satisfies the Darmois condition without a thin shell is unsupported, and the central construction collapses as written.
[Eq. (19) and Eq. (31)] The complexity factor defined in Eq. (19) contains an unexplained absolute value |ρ′|. In passing to the wormhole version (31), the authors implicitly replace this by an expression without the absolute value, which is legitimate only if ρ′ has a constant sign on the domain [r0, rΣ]. The paper does not state or prove such a sign condition. If ρ′ changes sign in the relevant interval, the ordinary differential equation (39) for the shape function is not the one actually derived from (19), and the subsequent solution (40)-(42) is not the correct general solution for the stated complexity factor. This is a technical issue that affects the derivation of the solution, and it should be clarified even after the junction problem is addressed.

minor comments (3)

[Section II] There are typographical errors: 'week energy condition' should be 'weak energy condition', and 'denpend' should be 'depend'.
[Section IV] The phrase 'the matter source is entirely contained within the region r < re Σ < 2M' contains an apparent typo: 're Σ' should presumably be 'rΣ'.
[Section III] The comment '0 < θ < π in contrast to −∞ < u < ∞' is unclear because u is not defined at that point; the relation of the coordinate u used in Ref. [7] to the hyperbolic angle θ should be specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wormhole and its NEC violation are obtained by explicit ansatz and boundary conditions; the self-citations are methodological, and the main defect is a non-circular matching error.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The authors close the five-function system by explicitly proposing a generalized redshift function and a complexity factor (Eqs. (37)-(38)) and then solving the first-order ODE (39) for the shape function; the constants are later fixed by the throat condition and the boundary conditions (43)-(45). Nothing is fitted to a data subset and later called a prediction: the negative energy density at the throat follows algebraically from the Einstein equations (21) together with the flaring-out condition β'(r0)>1 (Eqs. (27)-(30)), and the matter profiles (59)-(60) are outputs of the solved β. The repeated self-citation to [49] (Avalos, Fuenmayor, Contreras 2022) is used as a construction strategy and motivation, not as a load-bearing theorem; the actual hyperbolic-symmetry generalization and solution are computed in this paper. The 'equivalence class' language imported from [49] is a definition, not an independent uniqueness theorem. I therefore do not find a circular reduction. A separate, non-circular concern is that the claimed Darmois junction appears invalid as written: combining conditions (43)-(44) with the two line elements gives induced metrics h_w = -h_v on Σ, because the wormhole metric (20) has g_tt = -e^{2α} while the interior-horizon hyperbolic vacuum (1) has g_tt = +(2M/r - 1); standard junction conditions require h_w = h_v. This is a mathematical correctness issue, not a circularity, and is not counted in the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The free parameters are the constants entering the closure conditions and the boundary parameters M, rΣ, r0. The axioms are standard GR plus the ad hoc closures that generate the family of solutions.

free parameters (6)

c0 = -r0/(2M)
Constant in the generalized redshift (37), fixed by the boundary condition (44).
a0 = -7M rΣ / (2r0(rΣ - r0))
Constant in the generalized complexity factor (38), fixed by the pressure condition (45).
a1 = a0(c0 - 6/7)
Chosen to satisfy the throat condition β(r0) = r0.
a2 = a1 c0 - a0 c0^2
Parameter choice to simplify the shape function (40).
c1 = 0
Integration constant set to zero to remove terms from the general solution.
M, rΣ, r0 = constrained by (56)-(57)
Boundary mass, boundary radius, and throat radius; constrained by traversability but otherwise free.

assumptions (6)

standard math Einstein field equations G_μν = 8π T_μν
Basic framework used in Eq. (4).
standard math Darmois junction conditions require equality of first and second fundamental forms
Used in Section IV with conditions (43)-(45).
domain assumption The complexity factor expression (19) with |ρ'| is the correct generalization for hyperbolic symmetry
Taken from [9,53]; the absolute value is not present in the spherical literature and is not justified.
domain assumption The wormhole interior is located inside the event horizon and is matched to the hyperbolic vacuum (1)
Statements in Sections III and IV.
ad hoc to paper Closure conditions: prescribed generalized redshift (37) and complexity factor (38)
These two functions are chosen by hand to close the five-function system in Section IV.
ad hoc to paper Simplification c1 = 0 and a2 = a1 c0 - a0 c0^2
Made explicitly to make the solution more manageable, as stated after Eq. (40).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hyperbolic Casimir-like wormhole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJ53HFDY

@misc{pith2026250717906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hyperbolic Casimir-like wormhole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJ53HFDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17906}
}

read the original abstract

We present a systematic study of exact solutions for traversable wormhole geometries in a static and hyperbolic symmetric spacetime. In the conventional form of studying wormhole geometry, traversability requires the presence of exotic matter, which also provides negative gravity effects to keep the wormhole throat open. Using hyperbolic symmetry we obtain a solution already provided with negative energy density that replaces this effect and allows us to derive wormhole geometries that effectively violate the null energy condition. To achieve this goal, we use a generalized complexity factor for hyperbolic symmetry adapted to study wormhole geometries and with a suitable redshift function in order to construct a Casimir-like traversable hyperbolic wormhole. A detailed study has been conducted on the behavior of the matter sector, the energy conditions, and the traversability conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17906 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Minimum throat radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

[49]

P. Bhar. Eur. Phys. J. C, 85:3, 2025

work page 2025
[6]

Herrera and L

L. Herrera and L. Witten. An alternative approach to the static spherically symmetric, vacuum global solution to the einstein equations. Advances in High Energy Physics, 2018:3839103, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

F. S. N. Lobo and J. P. Mimoso. Phys. Rev. D, 82:044034, 2010

work page 2010
[9]

Herrera, A

L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino. Phys. Rev. D, 103:024037, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

W. Rindler. Relativity. Special, General and Cosmological. Oxford University Press, New York, 2001

work page 2001
[2]

S. Caroll. Spacetime and Geometry. An Introduction to General Relativity. Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2004

work page 2004
[3]

The Nature of the Schwarzschild Singularity

Nathan Rosen. The Nature of the Schwarzschild Singularity. In Relativity Conference in the Midwest, pages 229–258, 1970

work page 1970
[4]

Herrera, J

L. Herrera, J. Ospino, and A. Di Prisco. All static spherically symmetric anisotropic solutions of einstein’s equations. Physical Review D, 77:027502, 2008

work page 2008

Show all 75 references

[5]

Abell´ an, P

G. Abell´ an, P. Bargue˜ no, E. Contreras, and E. Fuenmayor.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 29:2050082, 2020

2020
[8]

Herrera, A

L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, J. Ospino, and L. Witten. Phys. Rev. D, 101(6):064071, 2020

2020
[10]

L. Flamm. Physik Z., 17:448, 1916

1916
[11]

Einstein and N

A. Einstein and N. Rosen. Phys. Rev., 48:73, 1935

1935
[12]

J. A. Wheeler. Phys. Rev., 97:511, 1955

1955
[13]

C. W. Misner and J. A. Wheeler. Ann. Phys., 2:525, 1957

1957
[14]

Morris and K

M. Morris and K. Thorne. Am. J. Phys., 56:395, 1998

1998
[15]

H. G. Ellis. J. Math. Phys., 14:104, 1973

1973
[16]

H. G. Ellis. Gen. Rel. Grav., 10:105, 1979

1979
[17]

M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne. American Journal of Physics, 56:395, 1988. 16

1988
[18]

M. S. Morris, S. Kip Thorne, and U. Yurtsever. Physical Review Letters, 61:1446, 1998

1998
[19]

Garattini

R. Garattini. Eur. Phys. J. C., 79:951, 2019

2019
[20]

M. Visser. Lorentizian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking. American Institute of Physics, New York, 1995

1995
[21]

F. S. N. Lobo. Phys. Rev. D, 71:084011, 2005

2005
[22]

Rueda, R

A. Rueda, R. Avalos, and E. Contreras. Eur. Phys. J. C., 82:605, 2022

2022
[23]

F. S. N. Lobo. Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions, Fundamental Theories of Physics, volume 189. Springer International Publishing AG, 2017

2017
[24]

force” and contains two different contributions. The first one is the “passive gravitational

investigates the possibility of generalized wormhole formation within galactic halos using observational data in matter-coupled gravity, while [25] studies similar configurations in the framework of symmetric teleparallel gravity. The impact of realistic dark matter profiles, ...

1948
[25]

Mustafa, S

G. Mustafa, S. K. Maurya, and Saibal Ray. On the Possibility of Generalized Wormhole Formation in the Galactic Halo Due to Dark Matter Using the Observational Data within the Matter Coupling Gravity Formalism. Astrophys. J., 941(2):170, 2022

2022
[26]

Mustafa, S

G. Mustafa, S. K. Maurya, and Saibal Ray. Relativistic wormhole surrounded by dark matter halos in symmetric teleparallel gravity. Fortsch. Phys., 71(6-7):2200129, 2023

2023
[27]

S. K. Maurya, Jitendra Kumar, Sweeti Kiroriwal, and Abdelghani Errehymy. Effect of Einasto spike and isothermal dark matter density profile on the geometry of wormhole in f( R,Lm) gravity. Phys. Dark Univ., 46:101564, 2024

2024
[28]

Sweeti Kiroriwal, Jitendra Kumar, S. K. Maurya, and Saibal Ray. Wormhole configuration with viable equation of state in f(Q) gravity. Phys. Dark Univ., 46:101559, 2024

2024
[29]

Jitendra Kumar, S. K. Maurya, and Sweeti Kiroriwal. Dark matter influences on wormhole stability in de Rham–Gabadadze–Tolley like massive gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C, 84(12):1305, 2024

2024
[30]

Newton Singh, G

Ksh. Newton Singh, G. R. P. Teruel, S. K. Maurya, Tanmoy Chowdhury, and Farook Rahaman. Conservative wormholes in generalized κ(R,T)- function. JHEAp, 44:132–145, 2024

2024
[31]

Finite action principle and wormholes

Jan Chojnacki and Jan Henryk Kwapisz. Finite action principle and wormholes. arXiv:2111.08407

arXiv
[32]

New wormhole solutions in a viable f (R) gravity model

Anshuman Baruah, Parangam Goswami, and Atri Deshamukhya. New wormhole solutions in a viable f (R) gravity model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 31(16):2250119, 2022

2022
[33]

Wormholes and holography: an introduction

Arnab Kundu. Wormholes and holography: an introduction. Eur. Phys. J. C, 82(5):447, 2022

2022
[34]

Tractor Beams, Pressor Beams and Stressor Beams in General Relativity

Jessica Santiago, Sebastian Schuster, and Matt Visser. Tractor Beams, Pressor Beams and Stressor Beams in General Relativity. Universe, 7(8):271, 2021

2021
[35]

Stuchl ´ ık and J

Z. Stuchl ´ ık and J. Vrba.Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136(11):1127, 2021

2021
[36]

K. A. Bronnikov, P. E. Kashargin, and S. V. Sushkov. Universe, 7(11):419, 2021

2021
[37]

Jose Luis Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, Christian Knoll, and E. Radu. Einstein–Dirac–Maxwell wormholes: ansatz, construction and properties of symmetric solutions. Eur. Phys. J. C, 82(6):533, 2022

2022
[38]

Bronnikov

Kirill A. Bronnikov. Some unusual wormholes in general relativity. Phil. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 380(2222):20210176, 2022

2022
[39]

M. S. Churilova, R. A. Konoplya, Z. Stuchlik, and A. Zhidenko. JCAP, 10:010, 2021

2021
[40]

R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko. Traversable Wormholes in General Relativity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(9):091104, 2022

2022
[41]

Tello-Ortiz, S

F. Tello-Ortiz, S. K. Maurya, and P. Bargue˜ no.Eur. Phys. J. C, 81(5):426, 2021

2021
[42]

Bambi and D

C. Bambi and D. Stojkovic. Universe, 7(5):136, 2021

2021
[43]

Sarkar, S

N. Sarkar, S. Sarkar, F. Rahaman, and S. Islam. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 36(02):2150015, 2021

2021
[44]

Capozziello, O

S. Capozziello, O. Luongo, and L. Mauro. Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136(2):167, 2021

2021
[45]

J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, C. Knoll, and E. Radu. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(10):101102, 2021

2021
[46]

Berry, F

T. Berry, F. S. N. Lobo, A. Simpson, and M. Visser. Phys. Rev. D, 102(6):064054, 2020

2020
[47]

Maldacena and A

J. Maldacena and A. Milekhin. Phys. Rev. D, 103(6):066007, 2021

2021
[48]

Garattini

R. Garattini. Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(12):1172, 2020

2020
[50]

Avalos, E

R. Avalos, E. Fuenmayor, and E. Contreras. Eur. Phys. J. C, 82:420, 2022

2022
[51]

Bargue˜ no, E

P. Bargue˜ no, E. Fuenmayor, and E. Contreras.Ann. Phys., 443:169012, 2022

2022
[52]

Investigating evolving wormholes in f(R,T) gravity

Dhritimalya Roy, Ayanendu Dutta, Bikram Ghosh, and Subenoy Chakraborty. Investigating evolving wormholes in f(R,T) gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 40(07):2550026, 2025

2025
[53]

Exploring Wormholes in Modified Theories of Gravity

Zinnat Hassan. Exploring Wormholes in Modified Theories of Gravity. Other thesis, 4 2025

2025
[54]

L. Herrera. Phys. Rev. D, 97:044010, 2018

2018
[55]

P. Leon, E. Fuenmayor, and E. Contreras. Phys. Rev. D, 104:044053, 2021

2021
[56]

Santana, E

D. Santana, E. Fuenmayor, and E. Contreras. Eur. Phys. J. C., 82:703, 2022

2022
[57]

J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff. On massive neutron cores. Phys. Rev., 55:374–381, 1939

1939
[58]

H. Bondi. Negative Mass in General Relativity. Rev. Mod. Phys., 29:423–428, 1957

1957
[59]

H. B. G. Casimir. On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates. Indag. Math., 10(4):261–263, 1948

1948
[60]

S. K. Lamoreaux. Demonstration of the Casimir force in the 0.6 to 6 micrometers range. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:5–8, 1997. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 81, 5475–5476 (1998)]

1998
[61]

Andrade, E

J. Andrade, E. Fuenmayor, and E. Contreras. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 31:2250093, 2022

2022
[62]

Z. Yousaf. Phys. Scripta, 95(7):075307, 2020

2020
[63]

Abbas and H

G. Abbas and H. Nazar. Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(6):510, 2018

2018
[64]

Abbas and H

G. Abbas and H. Nazar. Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys., 17(03):2050043, 2020

2020
[65]

Herrera, A

L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino. Phys. Rev. D, 99(4):044049, 2019

2019
[66]

Sharif and Komal Hassan

M. Sharif and Komal Hassan. Complexity of dynamical cylindrical system in f (G, T) gravity. Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 37(05):2250027, 2022

2022
[67]

Sharif and A

M. Sharif and A. Majid. Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136(5):530, 2021. 17

2021
[68]

Arias, E

C. Arias, E. Contreras, E. Fuenmayor, and A. Ramos. Ann. Phys., 436:168671, 2022

2022
[69]

M. Visser. Phys. Rev. D, 39:3182, 1989

1989
[70]

M. Visser. Nucl. Phys. B, 328:203, 1989

1989
[71]

Visser, S

M. Visser, S. Kar, and N. Dadhich. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:201102, 2003

2003
[72]

P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola. Universe, 9(2):88, 2023

2023
[73]

P. J. Arias, P. Bargue˜ no, E. Contreras, and E. Fuenmayor.Astronomy, 1:2, 2022

2022
[74]

Radhakrishnan, P

R. Radhakrishnan, P. Brown, J. A. Matulevich, E. W. Davis, and D. Mirfendereski. Symmetry, 16:8, 2024

2024
[75]

In this work we assume units such that c = G = 1 and as a consequence κ2 = 8π

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [49]

P. Bhar. Eur. Phys. J. C, 85:3, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [6]

Herrera and L

L. Herrera and L. Witten. An alternative approach to the static spherically symmetric, vacuum global solution to the einstein equations. Advances in High Energy Physics, 2018:3839103, 2018

work page 2018

[3] [7]

F. S. N. Lobo and J. P. Mimoso. Phys. Rev. D, 82:044034, 2010

work page 2010

[4] [9]

Herrera, A

L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino. Phys. Rev. D, 103:024037, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [1]

W. Rindler. Relativity. Special, General and Cosmological. Oxford University Press, New York, 2001

work page 2001

[6] [2]

S. Caroll. Spacetime and Geometry. An Introduction to General Relativity. Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2004

work page 2004

[7] [3]

The Nature of the Schwarzschild Singularity

Nathan Rosen. The Nature of the Schwarzschild Singularity. In Relativity Conference in the Midwest, pages 229–258, 1970

work page 1970

[8] [4]

Herrera, J

L. Herrera, J. Ospino, and A. Di Prisco. All static spherically symmetric anisotropic solutions of einstein’s equations. Physical Review D, 77:027502, 2008

work page 2008